Word Tank or Think Tank: The Democratic Progressive Party Must Choose

Word Tank or Think Tank: The Democratic Progressive Party Must Choose
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
July 22, 2009

DPP Chairman Tsai Ing-wen has announced that the DPP will call for a public referendum at the end of this year, "asking the public whether it wishes to hold a referendum on ECFA." According to news reports, Green Camp supporters agreed about the need for a year-end referendum. But they disagreed about its content. Some wanted a referendum on "whether to sign ECFA." Others wanted a referendum on "whether to hold a referendum on ECFA." Based on this logic, one could even call for a referendum on whether to hold a referendum on "whether to hold a referendum on ECFA." Politicians could carry this logic to the nth power, to its absurd extreme. This would appear to be a real life case of "It's Taiwan's first time, and the world is watching."
The DPP loves public referenda. Superficially it does so to demagogue the issue of reunification vs. independence, to oversimplify complex issues, to incite mob sentiment, and to rally voters during election season. But at a deeper level, the DPP has more serious problem. During his election campaign Ma Ying-jeou put forth a cross-Strait agreement known as CECA. But the DPP referred to it in the Minan dialect, which makes it sound like "subordinate role." The Blue Camp promptly changed the name to ECFA, which sounds like "we will become even wealthier." The DPP has long resorted to such demagogic word games. For example, Chen Shui-bian's "active opening, effective management" and "active management, effective opening" word games led to economic stagnation even as they won votes. Hsieh Chi-wei, GIO Chief to Chen Shui-bian, was extremely clever with words. But what the DPP really needs is not Hsieh Chi-wei's "word tank," but a "think tank" able to promote Taiwan's economic development.

For years, the DPP has opposed economic and trade exchanges with mainland China. It has long claimed that increasing cross-Strait exchanges would lead to Taiwan becoming "pro China." It would lead us into a pitfall in which Beijing used Taiwan merchants to besiege Taipei. Its argument was not entirely without justification. It helped keep the ruling administration on its toes. But the Democratic Progressive Party think tank has always been afraid to face a key problem. If Taipei finds itself shut out of ASEAN, what will become of Taiwan's economy? What will the consequences be? Put simply, the Democratic Progressive Party is willing only to stress the danger of cross-Strait economic and trade exchanges. It is unwilling to confront the dangers to Taiwan if Taipei rejects cross-Strait economic and trade exchanges. During the 2008 presidential campaign the Ma/Siew ticket spoke of a Closed Door Policy turning Taiwan into another Cuba. The Democratic Progressive Party could offer no response. Instead it proposed an "Ignore Beijing" economic development policy. This is the Democratic Progressive Party's real crisis.

The scholars the DPP relies upon most heavily come from the Taiwan Thinktank. The cross-Strait economic and trade development perspective they most frequently cite is the outdated "Factor Price Equalization Theorem." According to classical theory, If Taiwan and mainland China engage in free trade, our annual wages will be pulled down to the level of mainland China's. That the DPP would cite such an outdated, stone age theory in the twenty-first century, reveals the intellectual vacuum inside the DPP. The Taiwan Thinktank is behind the curve because it is intellectually indolent. It has no choice but to function as a "word tank" instead of a "think tank." It has no choice but to resort to demagoguery to ingratiate itself with its fundamentalist supporters. This is why the Democratic Progressive Party is no longer making any progress.

Anyone who has come in contact with trade literature in recent years knows that this is the era of the knowledge economy. Technological innovation proceeds rapidly. Advanced countries enjoy the advantage of constantly renewed technology, renewed production processes, renewed brands, and renewed value chains. These give them a head start. There is simply no such thing as enjoying "factor price equalization" with one's competitors. The framework this 50 year old trade theory describes is static. According to this theory, latecomers will eventually catch up with the pioneers. Therefore their income levels will eventually become equal. But in the era of the knowledge economy, the industrial structure undergoes rapid and dynamic evolution. Knowledge, coupled with increasing economies of scale, result in leaders leaving their competitors farther and farther behind. Under such circumstances, countries the world over have no choice. They must maintain their lead in certain areas of global production in order to survive.

Take Korea for example. They have never been afraid of the gravitational field created by the Chinese mainland. They are not afraid their average annual wages will be reduced to the level of mainland China's. They boldly signed an FTA with Beijing and ASEAN. South Korea understands that in order to master the knowledge-based economy in the era of globalization, they must not forsake any geographical or market advantage. They refuse to be penny wise and pound foolish. Koreans may not like Beijing. They may hate the fact that Beijing backs Pyongyang, which eyes Seoul with enmity. But Korean think tanks are nothing if not pragmatic. In the face of such challenges, they are not about to foolishly propose that they shut themselves behind closed doors for 50 years. Think tanks in Korea engage in serious research. The study the literature. They do not reduce their policies to clever word games. Leaders of the Democratic Progressive Party must choose between being a "think tank" (zi ku) and a "word tank" (zi ku). How they choose will determine the fate of the party.

字庫或智庫 民進黨必須做個選擇
【聯合報╱社論】
2009.07.22

民進黨主席蔡英文宣布，要以「ＥＣＦＡ該不該公投」為題，在年底舉行公投。據報載，綠營人士對於年底公投一事共識甚高，但究竟要以什麼題目或什麼題組去做公投闖關，卻頗多爭議。「要不要ＥＣＦＡ」可以公投、「要不要公投ＥＣＦＡ」也可以公投。若依此推理延伸，則「要不要公投『ＥＣＦＡ公投』」亦可公投。若是堆疊推演，政客們可以將議題平方公投、三次方公投……Ｎ次方公投，如此這般，也真是「台灣第一次、世界都在看」的奇蹟。

民進黨喜歡辦公投的原因，表面上看是為了操作統獨標籤、簡化語言、動員民粹、拉抬選情。但往更深一層探討，背後還有更嚴重的問題。馬英九在競選期間原本提出的兩岸協議名稱是ＣＥＣＡ，但在民進黨冠以「小腳色」的閩南語諧音之後，藍軍遂改以「要更發」的字音取代。其實，在名稱與諧音上找巧門、佔先機，一向是民進黨訴諸民粹的必要手段。例如陳水扁在「積極開放、有效管理」與「積極管理、有效開放」之間玩文字遊戲，原地踏步卻也能騙到一些選票；但民進黨所真正欠缺的，倒不是謝志偉那一級諧音巧配的「字庫」，而是對台灣經濟發展擘劃的「智庫」論述能力。

多年來，民進黨一向反對台灣與中國大陸經貿往來，說加強兩岸往來會使台灣傾中、使我們掉進「以商圍政」的陷阱。這樣的論述不能說沒道理，也對於主政者有相當的惕勵作用。但民進黨智庫始終不敢面對的問題是：如果台灣自外於東亞經濟合作局勢，會有什麼下場、什麼後果？簡言之，民進黨只敢強調兩岸經貿往來的危險，卻不敢面對台灣拒絕往來的絕境。馬蕭團隊在競選期間提出台灣鎖國將會「古巴化」的論點，民進黨竟全無招架餘地，提不出一套「不理會中共」的經濟發展積極論述。這才是民進黨真正的危機。

民進黨最倚重的學者教授多在台灣智庫遊走，而他們對兩岸經貿發展最常引用的理論觀點，竟然是老掉牙的「要素報酬相等」理論。依據該古典學說，台灣若與中國大陸開放經貿往來，則我們的平均工資報酬將被拉到與中國相當的極低水準。然而，在廿一世紀還在套用這種過時的新石器時代論述，就知道民進黨智庫中智識的空虛。正因為智庫不用功、論述跟不上潮流，他們就只好不斷訴諸「字庫」，靠一些民粹語言博取基本盤的支持。這就是民進黨不長進的根源。

所有接觸過晚近貿易文獻的人都知道，在知識經濟時代，各種技術與創新更迭甚快，而先進國家的優勢即在於不斷在新技術、新製程、新品牌、新價值鏈上取得先機，根本不讓對手有機會與自己「報酬相等」。五十年前的貿易理論描述的是一個靜態的框架，故假以時日，後進者終將追上先行者，因而彼此薪資將趨於均平。但在知識經濟時代，產業結構動態演進迅速，再加上知識投入所具有的規模報酬遞增特色，領先者遂有將後進者越拋越遠的趨勢。在這樣的環境之下，全世界各國都沒有選擇，都必須要在世界產業競逐的某些區塊中保持領先，才能夠生存。

以韓國為例：他們從來就不怕中國大陸的磁吸，也不怕其國民薪資被中國拉平，而勇敢地與中國及東協簽署ＦＴＡ。韓國了解，要在全球化時代掌握知識經濟的動能，就不能放棄任何地緣、任何市場的可能優勢，正是所謂「勿以善小而不為」。韓國人也不見得喜歡中共，他們也討厭有老共撐腰的北韓對他們虎視眈眈。但是無論如何，韓國人的智庫還是腳踏實地、面對挑戰，不會自閉於五十年前的愚蠢理論。正因為韓國的智庫認真地做研究、讀文獻，他們的政策就不致淪落為「字庫」巧句的排列組合。未來民進黨在「智庫」與「字庫」之間要如何選擇，才是該黨興衰的關鍵。